Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday April 03, 2015 @04:42PM
from the what's-yours-is-ours dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act contains anti-circumvention prohibitions that affect everything from music files to cell phones. The EFF noticed that it could apply to cars as well, so they asked for an exemption to be put in place so car owners would be free to inspect and modify the code running on their vehicles. It turns out U.S. automakers don't agree — they filed opposition comments through trade associations. "They say you shouldn't be allowed to repair your own car because you might not do it right. They say you shouldn't be allowed to modify the code in your car because you might defraud a used car purchaser by changing the mileage. They say no one should be allowed to even look at the code without the manufacturer's permission because letting the public learn how cars work could help malicious hackers, "third-party software developers" (the horror!), and competitors. John Deere even argued that letting people modify car computer systems will result in them pirating music through the on-board entertainment system, which would be one of the more convoluted ways to copy media (and the exemption process doesn't authorize copyright infringement, anyway)."

Unfortunately, unlike non-Apple desktop computers, cars aren't designed to be repaired easily. They are designed to look good, so screws are hidden, custom parts are used, and even when there are standard parts (such as tires), they use so many different sizes that you will be lucky to own two cars with the same tire format.

But they deliberately do not not do it either — that is, they don't care to make it easier for you to fix your car or find spare parts.

One thing, that prevents manufacturers from going completely bonkers with a design, is the cost of insurance — if a model is too hard (read "expensive") to fix, your insurance will rise, and smarter consumers — whether they do the repairs themselves or not — take it into consideration before buying. But, being able to do repairs — hardware or software — just is not a factor to most people. Or else Apple's products would never have reached the popularity they now enjoy.

And also, going bonkers with a design is what many people want — Corollas, for example, are very easy to repair (or were 10 years ago). They are still a great model, but I like my Quattro better:)

I happen to work for a very large car company as a manufacturing engineer. No, we don't do this deliberately, and as said below, we don't not do it deliberately, either.

Our number one goal is customer satisfaction, and if you Pareto it right, the vast majority of customers don't service their cars themselves, and have no interest in doing so. They're more satisfied with fit-and-finish, safety, economy, and features that will delight them. If it were the case that 80% of our customers valued home-serviceability more than these things, then designs would shift towards these things. It's simply not possible to make every, single part easily serviceable given the demands of the modern designs.

There's not a single powertrain engineer that says, "Hey, let's put this air intake over the number 5 cylinder so that the customer will be discouraged from changing the spark plugs himself at 160,000 km." Instead it's, "Bummer that this air intake is in the way of the number 5 cylinder, but I have to route it here because the cabin air filter, goes here, the oversized washer tank goes there, and I have to figure out how to package the rest of the components, too."

And modern cars require less service. I used to have to change the points in my VW when I was a kid, every 3000 miles if I recall correctly. These days as long as you change your oil and filter every 10,000 miles, you don't really have to do anything else. Home serviceability is still possible, if inconvenient, but it's more than offset by the larger service intervals.

For other routine, at-home-typical tasks, there's not a huge barrier versus the past. Brakes, filters, oil plug, are all nearly as simple today as they were in the past. Maybe the alternator or water pump is hard to get to, but then again, you're not replacing these every 50,000 miles like in the past, either.

Snort, ROFLMFAO. You can still do a lot of things to them. I just had to explain how to adjust idle mixture on cars with an EFI airflow meter, yes it's adjustable but factory sealed and takes less than 60 seconds to remove. Tires? Screw what the sticker on the doorjamb says, change the size and pressure as you see fit, as long as it doesn't have ABS, in which case you're screwed unless you have the dealer program the new tire size in the ABS computer. Some cars you can hook up a laptop and tune away, some n

Well, not having them designed for easier repair is objectively economically harmful. So it's an example of market failure. And forget about "looking good". It's all bogus, there's no contradiction between ergonomics and repairability. They're just making up excuses but real motives are "strategic", that is getting rid of competitors and making entry into market harder.

Nope, it's all about cost of manufacturing. Every one of those decisions contributes to one of three goals: lowering production cost, improving fleet fuel economy, or looking good. Those are the only three things that truly matter. By the way, they have a very negative incentive to make accident repairs difficult; insurance companies penalized cars that are expensive to repair. Insurance is more expensive on German cars, in no small part, because getting parts in the US is more expensive in time/dollars tha

and even when there are standard parts (such as tires), they use so many different sizes that you will be lucky to own two cars with the same tire format.

Even more annoying than that are the myriad of fastener sizes in both metric and standard. Why do I need 2-3 different sockets just to remove the battery cable brackets? Is there *really* a solid reason that one bolt has to be 14mm and the other 1/2"?

Two years ago traded my 1994 Jeep Cherokee in for a... 1996 Jeep Cherokee. Yes, it's fuel injected and computer-controlled, but everybody from Autozone to Hector at Segundo Auto (a traditional, highly-skilled "Mexican" mechanic from L.A.) has a reader that works on it. Can I fix my Jeep? My eyes are horrid and I'm sick and weak, but up to a point, yes. I still know how, and I still do the light stuff like tuneups and a/c recharges -- essentially annual service. Plus belts and hoses, which I routinely change because as all taxi and limo owners know, rubber is responsible for at least 80% of all road breakdowns. (check my login name - I used to own a small limo service.)

Brakes and more physical work? Hector needs to feed his kids, and he has a hoist and air tools -- and doesn't rip us off. Like when my wife went to the Hyundai dealer for a $19.95 oil change and tire rotation and they gave her a $2000 estimate for a 60,000 mile service (includes timing belt change) and Hector did all the work for $200 - not counting the timing belt kit, which includes the serpentine belt, water pump, and front main seal, that I got online for something like $120.

The day I can't fix my own car or hire someone like Hector instead of going to the dealer is the day I stop driving. Hopefully I'll be dead before things get that messed up.

The problem is that people like you who want to work on their car are becoming more and more rare -- most people just want their car to be reliable and if it breaks, take it to the garage. Few consumers want to open the hood and fix something -- myself included.. at one time I did all of my own oil changes, tuneups (back when a tuneup meant replacing points, condenser and rotor), brake pad changes, etc. But I won't touch a modern car, I'd rather just take it to the garage when it breaks (which is rarely wi

The problem is that people like you who want to work on their car are becoming more and more rare -- most people just want their car to be reliable and if it breaks, take it to the garage.

No, I think most would rather that someone they know could work on it, only the cars are so needlessly complex and require such special tools that most do not know how to work on them, so people take them to the shop because they don't know what else to do.

I would love to fix my own cars; and I do do some of the work myself. But even then, there are limits simply due to the computer being so integral to everything.

Sadly, even most shops now are useless as they just plug the computer in and do what it

I don't think people who want to work on their car are becoming more rare. People who are ABLE to work on their car are becoming more rare because cars are becoming less mechanical and more software. Meanwhile the hourly rates for repair are going through the roof, so clearly more people would like to avoid that expense if they can. But they can't because the car companies won't let them. Used to be you could buy a brand new car for 1/4 of your annual income, and then work on it yourself for only the price

As far as I can tell the cost of a Toyota Corolla is basically the same number of dollars as it was 10 years ago. Which means that after factoring in inflation the car is significantly cheaper than it used to be.

I have a 2005 Toyota Matrix, and aside from oil changes and tires I've only had to replace one part (the airbag clockspring) which cost a few hundred bucks and which I installed myself.

As far as I can tell the cost of a Toyota Corolla is basically the same number of dollars as it was 10 years ago. Which means that after factoring in inflation the car is significantly cheaper than it used to be.

Simple research on cars.com shows that the MSRP of a new 2015 Corolla is between 16,950 and 22,955. The original MSRP on a 2005 Corolla was 13,780 to 17,555. The price has increased between 23% and 31%. In that timeframe, inflation has supposedly gone up 20.2%, so the price of the Corolla has output paced inflation by a factor of 1.15 to 1.5.
In 2005, the Median household income was $55,238. A Corolla cost 25-32% of that.
In 2013, the last year for which numbers have been released, the median household income was $51,939. A Corolla costs 33-44% of that.
In 1968, the Corolla was first introduced in the United States. It cost under $1,700. Median household income was $7,700. The Corolla cost 22% of that.
Clearly cars are costing more as a fraction of income then ever before.
This does not even take into consideration that many households in 1968 were single earner households. Now, most households are dual income, but with nearly twice the earners in the household, the cost of a new car is still a higher percentage of income than ever before.

By and large, cars are way more reliable than they were 30 years ago. Yes they were simpler to work on, but you had to work on them more. For example, it was easy to change and adjust points, now it is near impossible to adjust electronic ignition, but it lasts for the life of the car (usually)Getting 100,000 miles on an older car was an accomplishment, now it is routine.

For example, it was easy to change and adjust points, now it is near impossible to adjust electronic ignition, but it lasts for the life of the car (usually)

No, you can adjust electronic ignition the same way you always have. Just degree the pickup. Usually you can just notch a part out and then install it just so. However, you really really don't want to do this, because it will make it misbehave some of the time. What you really want to do is just get a pluggable, programmable PCM. For most interesting cars you can get one for under a thousand. You can easily swap it out for smog tests if that's your thing. Then you can dial up any timing advance you want.

My daily driver is a 1990 Supra with 7000 miles on its rebuilt engine. It had 310,000 miles when I decided that I was getting too little compression. I have replaced a lot of things on that car (every hose, for starters) but I can do everything but truly major work myself.

On the other hand, I just paid $5,800 to have the clutch, angle gear, etc... of my S60-R Volvo replaced. I could not have began to do the work myself. My regular mech

Where does this information come from? My whole company that i work for now could do work on a car if they wanted to do the research. What kind of media brainwashing are you listening to or are you basing this on the few people you meet that are as dumb as nails. To add this whole forum includes people who could do the research and complete this, don't spread the misinformation and elitist attitude that the world is dumb, its only helping the media to segregate us.

Back in 1994 my parents had a pontiac transport, the thing had been in and out of the dealer(warranty) for repairs(warm stall, cold stall, running stall, on and on). I finally had enough and asked him if I could take it to work(I was apprenticing at a local shop). It took me 10 minutes to figure out what the problem was, do the test, and tell him to take it back to the dealership. The problem? The TPS(throttle position sensor) wasn't working properly giving out of band voltage causing fuel to be cut. 1

I finally had enough and asked him if I could take it to work(I was apprenticing at a local shop). It took me 10 minutes to figure out what the problem was, do the test, and tell him to take it back to the dealership. The problem? The TPS(throttle position sensor) wasn't working properly giving out of band voltage causing fuel to be cut. 10 minutes, the car had probably spent 2 weeks over a period of 5 months with them looking at it.

What's truly pathetic is that I will bet you a dollar that if you look in the factory service manual for that POS you will find the suggestion to test the TPS for problems like that. Dealers actually hire mechanics who can neither read nor follow directions.

I tried to raise this issue before... with the Tesla auto-updating your cars firmware without asking the owner of the car first, and how that means they can literally put anything in there without your consent. (NSA GPS tracking anyone?)

Everyone was too busy going "OMG TESLA RULEZ" to care. (A great car sure, but that doesn't mean we need another Apple walled-garden.)

Hi, Tesla Model S owner here... Technically you do get asked before firmware installs proceed (download happens automatically in the background). You're free to simply not apply the update. However, and more to your point, as with any binary update mechanism, there's really no viable way to determine what's actually getting installed in the process and you would lose out on potentially important bug fixes. Not all that different from Windows Update...

My personal assumption is that the firmware is a complete privacy-invading cesspool. I love the car overall, so I'll keep it until such time as I get the first mailed speeding ticket based upon my car's GPS location and internal speed telemetry.

I'm glad the EFF has taken up this fight. To me there's no symbolic difference between the code controlling the digital throttle in my xB and the cable doing the same thing in my 24 year-old Tercel... except that the Tercel does it better. I'm not sure, but I think the values that represent my throttle pressure aren't as smooth as they could be, and it might be due to it not being a float value.

Wonky throttle values aren't exactly unknown to Toyotas, as Wozniak discovered with his Prius. [slashdot.org] I probably would be unable to fix this bug, but he could. It's also possible that the somewhat rough transition between super-light pressure and the notch above that is actually a developing issue with my engine (it's not that noticeable, so the nuance leads me to believe it isn't physical - or at least that it could be improved in code).

So what if I could kill someone by editing the code in my xB? I could kill someone by working on my Tercel too. The legal responsibility rests with me either way. There's no real difference except that there exists precedence for controlling what people can do with the code in their gadgets. Perhaps in some crazy parallel universe, not only could automakers argue that the code isn't yours, they could argue that the whole car isn't yours to do with as you please either. I can imagine the same kind of EULA you agree to in software being applicable to the entire vehicle, listing off all the things you can and cannot do to with "your" brand new car. If they say you must go to the dealer for all repairs, then you must do it, and in the event of tempering, they can revoke your license and take your car back from you.

It's really the car analogy come to life. I have no doubt this argument has been made before. It's just that in the past, computers were computers, cars were cars, and if your car had a computer, it was just an 8-bit micro-controller that managed your vacuum control valves and fuel pressure.

So what if I could kill someone by editing the code in my xB? I could kill someone by working on my Tercel too.

The difference being that when you incorrectly modify the Tercel there is physical evidence of the tampering. With software changes it is quite possible that the code is unrecoverable and there may be no way to show tampering. The car maker then get left liable for the accident when it was actually caused by hacked code.

The real issue that we're going to be up against is whether 3rd parties will be permitted to continue to manufacture replacement parts. Soon every part incorporates an RFID, and the car refuses to start without all the RFID tags matching the authorization database. Perhaps they'll start with all the parts that they can justify as safety-critical, 'cause, you know, for the children. The government could even push for this in order to make sure that mileage and pollution critical parts are kept unmodified, 'c

The only way to gain popular acceptance of the substantially automated or fully driverless car is to guarantee that the technology is trustworthy and reliable ---

that all hardware and software changes are fully documented, competently performed, meet all statutory requirements and will not leave the owner or manufacturer exposed to civil or criminal action somewhere down the road.

The geek may obsess over his "ownership" of a vehicle. I care more about avoiding a crash and a lawsuit that may cripple me financially.

I care more about avoiding a crash and a lawsuit that may cripple me financially.

Or cripple you physically, forever.

My view is if you've chosen to have a car with a computer, and that computer somehow affects the momentum vector that is your vehicle, then you, and everyone else you may encounter on the road, has the right to software that has passed rigorous software QA. If you have a hot rod that has no computer, do what you want with it. If you're driving on the same road our taxes pay for, your vehicle needs to be safe.

- Should there be laws regulating what kind of software can control vehicles on public roads?

- Should there by laws regulating whether the owner of a vehicle can look at and modify the software in his car?

It's perfectly analogous to existing hardware modifications. There's no laws saying you can't modify you car in any way you damn well please. There are laws about what kinds of cars can be operated on public roads. There's a possibility that some modifi

This is what people don't seem to get. There are already laws describing what is legal on public roads. I see no reason these could not be expanded to cover software. If you want to go off road, or on a track, you should be able to do what you want.

Personally I would also feel more comfortable if the code in cars was open to public analysis. I am not a programmer, but I trust many independent eyes over one biased set with ulterior motives....

Apparently this is news to slashdotters, but hot rod enthusiasts are able to completely build replicas early model cars. You can build a 1940 Ford Coupe with steel frame and steel body, 1965 small block built to moderrn quality. Not one bit of electronics except for the radio. Street legal.

Nowadays building your own car is like paint by numbers. Note: possessing an indoor garage and automotive tools is recommended before attempting to build your own car.

Already answered. Smartphones are very programmable,- except you don't have root (which is to ensure the system works like the OS maker),- except the FCC-approved radio chip (to ensure you use public airspace inappropriately).

"Programmable cars" have been here since they put in radio tuners. The level of programmability should increase, but they should retain control of safety-critical operations.

Already had this problem with my 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid. The hybrid battery went dead. I went to the dealer and asked them to sell me a new battery so I could put it in. They refused, insisting THEY had to install it, and they would not sell me the battery! That's right, kids -- they refused to let me fix my own car, despite the fact that I am a trained electronics technician and hold a Bachelor's degree in Electronics Engineering!

Many of my vehicles have had four wheel disc and yet twice I've opened up a drum brake to do a brake job and found a component installed backwards.

As an aside, why the fuck are there drum brakes any more? Anyone who has specified them for a production vehicle since WWII should be slapped, smacked, stabbed, shot, and then taken outside and really hurt.

Sure lots of people are more than capable of doing so, but I know you wouldn't want to be in front of me if I had worked on my brakes:)

That's an argument for me to reinforce the back of my car not to ask the politicians to make a law that prevents you from working on your brakes.

It's *possible* to roll one back, but there certainly tamper resistant preventions to this in place

Didn't see any tamper preventions on the odometer of my car (made in 1982) - just a mechanical counter. In fact, I know that the odometer on my car is wrong for the simple reason that it was replaced (twice) with nobody bothering to set the replacement to the same number as the original.

Didn't see any tamper preventions on the odometer of my car (made in 1982) - just a mechanical counter.

OBD-II vehicles maintain an internal odometer in the PCM, even if the cluster somehow has a physical odometer. Modern vehicles with immobilizers have security codes which come into play when replacing immobilizers. In many cases it is possible for the shadetree mechanic to program immo codes so long as they manage to get the codes out of the old hardware before replacing it. If too much smoke has been let out of components, it means a trip to the dealer... or replacement of the PCM with an aftermarket unit.

had an idiot reprogram the brake software. Sure he's 'liable' but you're now dead...

On the same front, I've always marveled that anybody can work on their own brakes...and legally drive on the roads. Sure lots of people are more than capable of doing so, but I know you wouldn't want to be in front of me if I had worked on my brakes:)

I know how to work on my own brakes, but I don't enjoy it and would rather pay someone else to do it. I can't tell you how many times a so-called 'pro' has screwed up my brakes. I would place much more trust in a car enthusiast than a minimum wage greasemonkey. This is one of the reasons why it's so important to find a mechanic you can trust.

I thought I understood your point. Your point was about restricting the rights of people to work on their own cars because some portion of those people may be dangerously incompetent. My point was that the alternative to allowing people to work on their own cars, forcing them to go to "professionals, also poses the risk of having some portion of those people being dangerously incompetent.

It's my opinion that restricting liberty should be backed by very sound reasoning, if not considered only as a last res

had an idiot reprogram the brake software. Sure he's 'liable' but you're now dead...

On the same front, I've always marveled that anybody can work on their own brakes...and legally drive on the roads. Sure lots of people are more than capable of doing so, but I know you wouldn't want to be in front of me if I had worked on my brakes:)

I would be comfortable with most people on here changing their brakes. After all, most of us would research the components that are needed and select upgraded parts that work better with our cars, research the process through youtube videos, repair manuals, experts in forums, etc. and then take the time to ensure that everything was completed to specification. We would then test it and make any necessary fixes.

How is that any more scary than the mechanic in the shop, usually the least experienced guy, ru

Dude... brakes are easy to work with. If something goes wrong, you'll find out before you even make it onto the street. The neglectful driver who needs new brake pads is much more of a threat to your safety.

All the more reason to keep something like brakes mechanical. It's not like electronics don't ever fail, and you usually have clear indicators for when something mechanical is on its last legs.

You are stating as such that even homebrewed reprogramming doesn't take a bunch of specialized equipment and knowledge still. It's not like opening a program, moving every value to 11 and closing. Someone who had no clue would be lucky to get the car to start, much less move move than 20 feet.

And especially as electric cars come into the fold, being able to modify parameters is the equivalent to putting on a larger exhaust.

Which electric car would benefit from putting on a larger exhaust?

I'd rather have more options than what the factory allows, especially when the factory is charging twice the garage rate of my local shop.

So you change a few of the parameters of your electric car and some of the safety systems stop working right. E.g., you didn't realize that a parameter used for maximum current for acceleration interacted with the regenerative braking. I.e., you go fast but your brakes don't work as well. Or you change that acceleration parameter and your motors burn up because of the overcurrent. Or you change some other parameter that's based on a hardwar

The bit that you are too dense to grasp is that all of your fears are happening NOW. Every single car you see on the road has the possibility of some modification to the mechanicals or EMS. I upgraded to larger brakes. The horror!

The main difference is being able look over the entire code so it is obvious that maximum current is linked to regenerative braking or having to kluge together some code and finding out after the accidents start coming in.

And especially here, arguing for security through obscurity is just delicious.

The one where changing one thing on a car is "equivalent to" changing something else that the car doesn't have to begin with. If changing the exhaust on a electric car (which has no effect at all) is equivalent to changing the software, then why bother? It will have no effect.

The bit that you are too dense to grasp

Thanks for playing. Putting one aftermarket piece of hardware on a car is not the same as (or equivalent to) modifications to software that runs a large number of systems on that car. There is a manufacturer that designed and tested

If I change timing an a vehicle through software or through larger injectors is irrelevant. I'm changing an operating parameter, but since software is more akin to magic to you, it's nothing that should be trusted to mere mortals.

And beyond your doomsday scenarios, even with complete modification being available now, that hasn't transpired; it's possible, and so should be outlawed. Do you work for DHS by chance?

And the ONLY thing that would change is increasing the cost, as again, you were too dense to catch it, complete EMS systems are available now. Complete motor management systems are available now. By your estimation we should have death tolls, and yet nothing.

There are even critical systems running linux now. No explosions that I'm aware of.

What do you have against empirical evidence anyway?

Further, arguing for safety concerns through the auspices DMCA is disingenuous in the extreme. You are arguing for no modifications, which, allow me to laugh even further. Putting in an aftermarket stereo could overload the electrical systems of a car, sending kittens and babies to a fiery death. Oh dear god.

Except that very few people will actually be writing new code for their cars. Far more likely a few experts will do some mods and distribute it to any who want with instructions on how to install it. People who change their own brakes aren't manufacturing the brake pads in their garage - they are buying some third party hardware and following general procedures for installing them.

You're comparing apples (code) to oranges (break pads). Third party manufactured break pads will be subject to some oversight and regulation, especially as you can't just whip up break pads in your garage. On the other hand you are suggesting that anyone who really wants to can modify and install software without oversight or regulation - and that is not something I'd like to see in safety critical systems.

And if the people writing the code have to get it certified before it can be used, then that puts th

You're comparing apples (code) to oranges (break pads). Third party manufactured break pads will be subject to some oversight and regulation, especially as you can't just whip up break pads in your garage. On the other hand you are suggesting that anyone who really wants to can modify and install software without oversight or regulation - and that is not something I'd like to see in safety critical systems.

Bullshit. Sure, brake pads in particular might end up with oversight and regulation (in the sense of r

In the UK, modifications such as you suggest still need to meet the vehicle roadworthiness test for the car to gain its MOT certificate - can't hit the road without one of those, so the work is definitely regulated.

Is there a source for this? I know things like ultra-light aircraft have very low regulatory hurdles, but cars on the open road? I thought there were minimums in place that get stricter every year. Like how all new cars need a tire pressure monitoring system?

You have never worked on a car then? Getting a modified car approved for insurance can be difficult. (A friend had to jury rig adjustable sun visors on his convertible for the test, for example) No insurance and you cannot drive your car on the road (at least in most sane parts of the world)

The police will most definitely pull you over, confiscate your vehicle and issue a fine.

I have worked on a number of custom cars, and have friends who have worked on many more. No you cannot just do whatever you want to

Third party manufactured break pads will be subject to some oversight and regulation, especially as you can't just whip up break pads in your garage.

What? Who told you that? I watched a video of some guys doing it in Cuba. They took asbestos out of a bag and mixed it with phenolic resin, then put it into a mold with a brake lining they had cleaned and cooked it until it was a brake shoe.

Also, third party brake pads aren't subject to any regulation, because you can sell them "for off-road use only".

This is a double-edged sword. Once people are locked out of their cars, what is to prevent automakers from charging for the ability to go above 45, to go on country roads, to go outside of a state, have more stations on the radio, allow full use of the speakers, allow use of the sunroof, or many other features?

It would be trivial for automakers to license these features just to the owner... so the used car market would dry up, just like it did with used game sales and the fact that most content is from DLC, not on the game disc. Do we want to see automakers demand $5000 from the next person you sell your car to in order to have a software license to start the vehicle?

Look at the console market and how gamers are charged for virtually everything. Would people want that in their cars where they have to pay $100 a month in order to keep access to their climate control and radio? Remember, the car will come with a EULA and those have stood quite well in courts.

You mean somebody could do the same thing to their car that I can do to mine? I can adjust the carburetor on my car to pass the CO test, then adjust it back so the car runs OK. I have not done this, but it is possible if I need to.

Cars today must meet rigid safety, fuel efficiency, and emissions standards. The car's computer is an essential part of the system. A small modification to the software can be the difference between a car being in compliance with these regulations and falling well outside them.

The automaker isn't responsible when you do that. It's your problem. That's why it's bullshit when automakers bring this up. All they need to do is implement the same sort of modding detection that phones have.

So what you saying is we must prohibit everyone from being able to modify their vehicles because someone somewhere might do something illegal? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? I mean what kinda Orwellian world do you want to live in where everything is banned unless approved by the government? Do you want people to wear coded chastity belts, only unlockable by approved agents, as well in order to prevent rape? Jeez, of all the arguments against people modifying their own cars this is the most mewly mo

This has been done since there were regulations for cars....I remember as a kid fitting a gas cap before the muffler on the headers. Normal driving you would leave the cap on, but when it was time to race you took the cap off and ran straight pipes.

I disagree. Computer controlled fuel injection in the last 20-30 years has done more to improve driveability, reliability, fuel efficiency, and emissions reduction than anything else anyone has ever been able to do with purely mechanical systems. A modern V6 makes as much power as a 1980's V8 at twice the economy or more. All due to computer control.

I grew up learning to work on cars and I can still tune a carburetor with the best of them. But I really love the new computerized systems. Once you figure

this has nothing to do with the code. Car companies want to stop independent mechanics using software than bypasses the manufacturers electronic locks. The locks are present to give their dealerships a monopoly on car repairs.

Anyone who believes these shill: You are not as smart as you think. Learn to be more skeptical.

I swear to god the shills on this website...this has nothing to do with the code.

Actually this thread is really about the code. Re-read and note: "The EFF... asked for an exemption to be put in place so car owners would be free to inspect and modify the code running on their vehicles."

Yes, that is also true. However that does not negate the reality that the EFF wants people to be able to MODIFY code. That is something FAR beyond simply getting the error codes and diagnostic data that would allow non-dealership mechanics to work on the car. Its a related but quite separate issue.

How would you feel about, say, 10% of the cars on the road running custom software by the next door kid?

How would you feel about the food you eat being prepared at home by a mere lay "cook" without any formal food service training (shock, horror!) instead of on a McDonalds assembly line?

How would you feel about playing sports with friends instead of having it be prohibited except for "professionals" because somebody might get hurt?

How would you feel about wiping your ass yourself, rather than having to hire a Certified Asswipe to do it for you because you're apparently so fucking incompetent that you might miss a spot and get sick?

If there's a public safety concern about people hacking code in cars, then copyright is not the way to address it. The purpose of copyrights is purportedly to encourage the production of more works. It is certainly not intended to be a tool for ensuring public safety.

Ideally, hacking safety-related code (and then driving it on a public highway) should be legal only if the hacker got the appropriate certifications to work on that area, along with insurance riders to go with it. This would be completely unrel

These are exactly the same sort of arguments the auto manufacturers trotted out back when they were trying to prevent people from repairing or modifying cars without having it done by the dealer. The arguments were bullshit then, and they haven't gotten any better since.

I'm sorry, but auto manufacturers have a point. Not anyone is competent to reprogram embedded car software. Unfortunately, bugs can be deadly. How would you feel about, say, 10% of the cars on the road running custom software by the next door kid?

People have been tinkering and modifying their cars ever since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line, yet surprisingly civilization has survived. Or are you one of those people that thinks because it's "on a computer" it is scary and dangerous? If the kid next door starts trying to reprogram his ECU without knowing what he is doing he is more likely to brick the damn thing than anything else so he won't be going anywhere near a freeway after that unless he pushes it there.

Cars are killing much more people than guns. In fact, I would go further than the auto manufacturers. Nobody should be allowed to drive a car. How many people on the roads shouldn't have even a driver's license at all? A lot. And you are ready to see those people hacking their own car software? No way!

And I have a 1982 W123. It has power steering and power brakes, but no computers (well, the tape deck has a MCU). It is worth the additional cost in fuel to me (though since it is modified to run on LPG, the cost isn't that much higher than that of a newer gasoline car).

Features for the sake of features add to the list of stuff that can fail. I have seen an ad for a Tesla with the door handles that come out after you unlock the car. I wonder how that mechanism is going to work after 10 or more years...